Granted none of the samples are of music, but they do provide a useful basic comparison for hearing the differences between X/Y coincident, two near-spaced setups (ORTF and improved-PAS-like), and a spaced omni configuration.

I'm posting the link here because I find I personally prefer the setup labeled "quasi-ORTF" for all samples there except the construction site, and that "quasi-ORTF" setup closely resembles a typical "Improved-PAS" configuration (40cm / 40 degrees) with the microphones angled only 20 degrees away from center - which is a pretty typical PAS angle from the taper section or soundboard area further back in the room. Only on the construction site sample did I prefer the ORTF sample for it's more distinct left/right imaging width. For all the other samples I felt the quasi-ORTF samples produced a better balance between sharp imaging (X/Y furthest to that extreme) and natural sounding diffuse ambient openness (spaced omnis furthest to that extreme).

A few comments-

I was listening on headphones.

There is no right or wrong choice here, only personal preference.

I like the improved-PAS-like quasi-ORTF samples here because of their stereo qualities - that is to say, how they reproduce the sound, even though it is not actually being leveraged for the reasons we'd choose PAS! It just sounds better to me than the other samples. Where as the primary purpose for choosing PAS is to either simplify setup, or maximize the direct/reverberant ratio as much as possible. It's very encouraging that it also simply sounds better and more natural to me when in a prefered recording location without the ease of setup constraint.

I like to angle spaced omnis apart from each other rather than pointing parallel to each other, especially if that pair is the only mics I'm using. That provides some additional level difference information at high frequencies which makes the imaging somewhat less washy and more distinct. I think that would improve the spaced omni samples here, but the way its been done here more clearly represents the basic differences between setups without that kind of modification.

I wish there was a way to play both the spaced omnis and X/Y samples simultaneously. I like that setup for live music recording because it sort of gets the best of both worlds. There was a sample player page at the Schoeps website at one point (may still be up) which allowed similar samples to be played singly or simultaneously. I don't think it was intended for simultaneous playback of more than one sample at a time but it worked. It was very interesting hearing the difference between each setup on its own as well as combinations of two setups, as in a four microphone configuration. It helped confirm my suspected preference for X/Y + spaced omnis over near-spaced + spaced omnis, and over all of the two mic configurations alone. Best of both worlds from a harmonious combination.

Do you know what they mean by "open cardioids" in the quasi-ORTF examples? I'm assuming it's a wide cardioid or the like. I'd be curious why they didn't use a the same cardioids for the quasi-ORTF as they used for XY and ORTF.

Good catch, I didn't see that. That would be the Schoeps mk22, which is between a cardioid (mk4) and subcardioid (mk21) in pattern. I didn't realize they'd used different capsules for the ORTF and modified-ORTF samples. That does complicate things and make the comparison a bit less useful for our purposes by introducing another variable. I generally like the sound of the mk22 better, as long as it works in the acoustic and assuming all else is equal except the setup configuration, so I now need to take that into consideration in my preference for modified-ORTF in these samples.

Quite frankly unless you're an imaging nut like I am most wouldn't tell the difference.

I'm definitely an imaging nut too.

Not me. I go for even channel balance. Don't really even consider imaging in post. And my mic placement is pretty much point & shoot. I used to use cards in ORTF exclusively, until I lost the mounting bar, now I run X/Y, and place them where it might sound the best and not be a hassle to maintain the spot.

The stereo zoom info has only just crept into my thinking. Maybe it will affect my setups and mixes, maybe not...

Good catch, I didn't see that. That would be the Schoeps mk22, which is between a cardioid (mk4) and subcardioid (mk21) in pattern. I didn't realize they'd used different capsules for the ORTF and modified-ORTF samples. That does complicate things and make the comparison a bit less useful for our purposes by introducing another variable. I generally like the sound of the mk22 better, as long as it works in the acoustic and assuming all else is equal except the setup configuration, so I now need to take that into consideration in my preference for modified-ORTF in these samples.

To my ears and to my playback transducers, the mk22 is the finest capsule Schoeps makes and can be used in the widest possible scenarios.

Do you have a standard way of positioning them? I just got a pair of Neumann KM143's, their Wide Cardioid condensers, and have only used them a few times, and all but once, on stage. Very interested in practical experience with the Hypocardioid (!) pattern!!

Do you have a standard way of positioning them? I just got a pair of Neumann KM143's, their Wide Cardioid condensers, and have only used them a few times, and all but once, on stage. Very interested in practical experience with the Hypocardioid (!) pattern!!

I try to use the PAS theory with them. I've found that a 35cm spread at 70 degrees tends to work well from the OTS at MSG. FOB, I've used them with a NOS setup with good results. Onstage I've used them at 21cm and 110 degrees.

^ And that's what this Improved PAS technique does. It makes the application of Stereo Zoom to Point At Stacks simple.

I'm posting to notify thread readers of an edit I just made correcting a minor copy/paste typo in the extended table GIF and PDF in the initial post. Previously the SRA numbers for the 50 degree PAS angle column were off by 10 degrees, copied from the cell immediately above without modification. Nothing major, the edit doesn't effect the recommended spacing numbers and that column is mostly just informational, but has now been corrected. Typo was pointed out to me by a TS member earlier today (thanks man).

I need to listen to it some more, then put it away for a while and listen again before I can say what I think of it...

I think that the caps were most likely pointing slightly outside of the stacks (couldn't check during the show). One thing I noticed during mastering was that the vocals were much higher than the instruments at times. I'd expect that since the drums and guitars were already very loud from the stage so the vocals were turned up to be able to be heard.

After several listens of both recordings, I am a fan of this technique. I can detect a difference between each in terms of spaciousness, although I think the radically different genres make that more difficult on first listen (more obvious between songs when you can hear people cheering and talking).

For Earthless, I tipped my cap to the Hoff, so I was limited to the narrowest spacing on the chart. For Billy Strings I was able to use the recommended spacing for the angle from the section. I did need to estimate my spacing due to the angle not being on the chart.

Great recording John! IMO this is an excellent example of how good CA-14(c) > CA-UBB > PCM-M10 can sound.. from a good spot, with the mics setup optimally. Glad this approach is working out well for you. Thanks for the feedback and links to your recordings using the technique.

You're very welcome! Thank you for doing the legwork and sharing your findings in an easy to use document. I pretty much record PA's exclusively so I like that I can use this method instead of the patterns that were developed for acoustic music.

I remember checking the difference between cards and supercards when I originally did these tables, and the difference seemed minor, at least less than I expected. But a basic aspect which will hold regardless is this- The greatest variation will be at wide PAS angles, and the least at narrow PAS angles.

Based on Noah's request, I just posted a new revised table on the first post of this thread which indicates PAS spacing based on pickup pattern. It includes fig-8, supercardioid, cardioid, subcardioid, and omni, all based on the Stereo Zoom data from the sengpielaudio webpage calculator. Here's a link to that post with the new table

This took considerable effort today and I'm quite excited about folks here at TS giving it a try. I suspect it will prove quite useful, even if only taking a look at it so as to internalize a gut-feel for the general spacing/angle/pattern relationships. I see it as further development of the PAS method, which is the only microphone configuration which applies solely to the domain of concert taping, conceived by tapers, for tapers. I consider Improved PAS to be one of my more valuable contributions to fellow tapers. But really all I've done here is to modify Point At Stacks in the context of Stereo Zoom to make it easily approachable and applicable. Nothing really new here except for the insight into the applicability of SZ to the unique suitability of PAS to audience taping, which is a unique oddity in the audio recording world. Ironically, I rarely use this method myself because I almost always using multichannel OMT setups, but OMT is arcane and of limited in application for the majority of tapers due to its complexity. In contrast, Improved PAS has the potential to help many, many more tapers make good tapes. If the new table and configurations it suggests work well for you please let me know. I'd love to hear the recordings. If it isn't working please let me know that too so that I can continue to revise and improve it with your feedback. I see all this as making PAS as credible a technique as any other standard near-spaced configuration, if not more so for our applications.

I edited a number of my initial posts in this thread to reflect the revision and explain the new table a bit, but I'm more than happy to continue the conversation here and field any questions. I also removed the old revised table on the first page of the thread which had multiple SRA options as I felt it was overly complex and suspect few were using it compared to the simple table (and upon reviewing it today I found that data was actually for cardioids and I had mislabeled it as being for supercardioids). However, if anyone found it useful I'm happy to repost it upon checking and relabeling it. Cheers and make great tapes!